Moral Consequences Of Attending Sspx Mass

[Dr. Bombay]

I'm confused. The SSPX website says the following: 

 

Canonical approval??

The Society had the approval of the local ordinary when it was first established but that approval was later withdrawn.

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm confused. The SSPX website says the following: 

 

Canonical approval??

 

Yes, they had approval when they began. That was in the diocese of Sion, and Nestor Adam approved them initially as an Institute of Diocesan right, if I am properly recalling my terminology.

Actually there was a bit of borderline foul-play that led to them losing their canonical approval in the first place. I cannot remember the details just now, but the Society had good reason to feel maligned when they lost official recognition.

 

Yeah I get that, but what does that MEAN? 

 

What is "bad" about an illicit Mass? If the Eucharist is the same, what is the problem? (please nobody assume I'm supporting the SSPX, I'm just confused about what it practically means to have an illicit Mass.)

 

Well, set aside the SSPX issue. Think about it in more common terms. If a priest is flouting the rubrics, what he is doing is illicit. It is more or less self-evident that this is bad, even if the Mass remains valid, yes? The presumption is that Church laws are good and right, and therefore worthy of obedience.

Certainly it could be the case that some laws are bad - after all, canon law enjoys no guarantees of infallibility - but generally we should assume that a Church law is worthy of our obedience.

 

So, objectively speaking, the SSPX have broken quite a few rules. They did not cease to function as a Society when they lost canonical recognition. Archbishop Lefebvre continued to ordain his seminarians, despite being told not to. His priests continued in their various and sundry activities across the world, despite their Society not legally existing, and despite not being welcome in most places. Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four men to the episcopate without a papal mandate, and those bishops have followed in his footsteps.

 

So yes, they certainly have done many illicit things. Nobody can deny that. Although there are grey areas in some of those things, but we will consider that irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

What the question hinges on is not whether or not the actions of Marcel Lefebvre and the Society were legal, because they were not. The question is whether or not their illegal actions were justified under circumstances X Y and Z.

 

Again, it is not logically impossible for Church laws to be wrong. The Cadaver Synod was disgusting and immoral, even though the Pope is the legitimate arbiter of laws in the Roman Church. And I want to make it clear also that I am not saying the SSPX is or was justified in all their actions. I am just trying to illustrate the context in which we find ourselves. The question is not (in most cases) whether or not laws were broken, but whether or not it was ok to break those laws.

[Nihil Obstat]

To clarify, the presumption must be that it was not ok to break those laws, all things being equal.

[ToJesusMyHeart]

Out of context, but to clarify and make it real to me--

 

the question is not (in most cases) whether or not laws were broken, but whether or not it was ok to break those laws.

Is this the same as saying, for example, that in Operation Rescue, the faithful were breaking the law by barring abortion clinic entrances, but they were justified in breaking the law because it was necessary (because abortion kills babies, harms mothers, destroys souls, etc..) ??

 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

Out of context, but to clarify and make it real to me--

 

Is this the same as saying, for example, that in Operation Rescue, the faithful were breaking the law by barring abortion clinic entrances, but they were justified in breaking the law because it was necessary (because abortion kills babies, harms mothers, destroys souls, etc..) ??

If we were talking about a hypothetically unjust point in canon law, then yes, that would be a decent analogy. Although I am sure there are no laws comparable in gravity currently existing in canon law. :hehe:

So, I would not claim that the two concrete situations are comparable. But talking in purely hypothetical terms, it is not impossible for that kind of situation to come about.

[ToJesusMyHeart]

Also, without a malformed conscience which tells you that you have a moral obligation to attend an SSPX mass, it becomes much much more difficult to figure out whether it's OK to go to an SSPX mass. I am inclined to think the risk is not worth the reward in any case I can think of.

 

From what Nihil copied and pasted earlier, it seems that there is no risk associated with going to Mass with the SSPX. It is indeed okay to go to their masses. I base my conclusions from the bolded and reddened quotes below, most especially on this quote: "Msgr. Perl, the secretary, has affirmed the right of Catholics to attend SSPX chapels and masses with no spiritual sin, nor canonical penalty attached."

 

Irrelevant portions have been deleted from the original text.

 

 

As to the SSPX not being in schism, Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos wrote about that in the past, while he was president of PCED. He also wrote about it not being sinful in and of itself to assist at an SSPX Mass.

"I know there are in the Fraternity people filled with good will," Cardinal Castrillón said. "The Superior General, His Excellency, Bishop Bernard Fellay, has in the past years persevered in dialogue."

• Please accept that I reject the term "ecumenism ad intra." The bishops, priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics. It is Archbishop Lefebrve who has undertaken an illicit Episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics.

It is important to note that in nearly every instance of personal correspondence with the PCED by Catholics, Msgr. Perl, the secretary, has affirmed the right of Catholics to attend SSPX chapels and masses with no spiritual sin, nor canonical penalty attached. Correspondence of such matters from the PCED or a curial congregation can be acted upon by Catholics with a clear conscience of moral certitude.

 

In 2001, after a meeting between Bishop Bernard Fellay, SSPX Superior General, and two of the three other SSPX bishops with Cardinal Castrillón, Bishop Fellay said that the Cardinal had told him that he found them to be "neither heretics nor schismatics."

 

In a 30 Days interview appearing soon after Bishop Fellay's August 29, 2005 meeting with the Holy Father, Cardinal Castrillón again confirmed that the SSPX situation was not a matter of formal heresy, but one of canonical regularization. In answer to a question about the historical situation leading up to the August 2005 meeting, Cardinal Castrillón said, "Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism." Although the cardinal does continue to affirm the original Ecclesia Dei Adflicta motu proprio by Pope John Paul II that Archbishop Lefebvre ordained four bishops without a papal mandate, he is careful to add the caveat that it was not a "formal schism."

Again, this is a reaffirmation that the Cardinal and the Holy See recognize that the bishops of the SSPX do not claim any specific jurisdiction and are canonically auxiliary bishops, ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in what he believed to be "a state of emergency," to administer the sacraments and catechize the lay faithful in the traditional manner prior to the post-conciliar upheaval and chaos. In other words, the Cardinal acknowledged again in a public interview that the SSPX bishops and priests were not in formal schism, even if they continue to be in a canonically irregular situation.

Shortly after the publication of the 30 Days interview, Cardinal Castrillón was interviewed on Italian television channel 5, November 13, 2005 regarding the status of the SSPX. In this interview, the Cardinal said the following:

• We are not confronted with a heresy. It cannot be said in correct, exact, and precise terms that there is a schism. There is a schismatic attitude in the fact of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate. They are within the Church. There is only the fact that a full, more perfect communion is lacking — as was stated during the meeting with Bishop Fellay — a fuller communion, because communion does exist.
• [...]
• Regarding the faithful who sympathize with the SSPX, we must insist that
  1. we are dealing with Catholic faithful who — provided they have performed no explicit actions — in no way wish to leave the Roman Catholic Church;
      
  2. attending Masses celebrated by priests of the SSPX is not in itself a delict and does not bring about excommunication;
      
  3. only those of the faithful who see the SSPX as the only true church, and who make this visible externally, incur the penalty of excommunication;
      
  4. it is consequently not at all appropriate to regard as non-Catholic the children baptized in the chapels of the SSPX, and to treat their marriages to another Catholic as mixed marriages;
      
  5. when baptism by a priest of the SSPX is attested in writing and the parents of the newly baptized do not see the SSPX as the only true church, then this attestation suffices for registration of the baptism in the Liber Baptizatorum of the parish of baptism, under the running number 0. On the basis of this registration, a baptismal certificate can be issued.

The respected German canonist Dr. Georg May, professor emeritus of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, summarized the irony shown above in a January 12, 2003 letter, when he wrote: "The SSPX is not schismatic because she neither rejects the subordination to the Roman Pontiff nor rejects the communion with the bishops (can. 751)." And the explicit irony is found in the immediate following statement where Prof. Georg said, "Rather, the latter reject communion with the Society."

1. The SSPX is not schismatic, because she neither rejects the subordination to the Roman Pope nor rejects the communion with the bishops (can. 751). Rather the latter reject communion with the Society.
    
2. Because the Society is not schismatic, its members are not excommunicated. Both are untrue allegations, made by those, whom the reflective mirror presented to them by the Society irritates.
    
3. Absolutely nobody incurs any punishment by attending the masses of the Society. Of course one can fulfill one's Sunday obligation by attending a Sunday mass in a chapel or church of the Society. Whoever alleges otherwise, reveals that he merely fears concurrence.

 

 

So I'm still struggling to see the issue. If I hypothetically had to choose between going to a liturgically abused, rubric-breaking, illicit Novus Ordo Mass and an illicit (but liturgically non-abused) SSPX Mass, I'd probably go to the SSPX because I personally cannot stand it when liturgical abuse occurs.... Does that make me a bad person? 

[ToJesusMyHeart]

 

"Catholic laymen may attend Mass at a Society of St. Pius X chapel without committing any sin nor incurring any canonical penalty. However, the PCED guidance is that it "cannot recommend" attendance at the Society of St. Pius X chapels due to the danger of imbibing a "schismatic mentality." In other words, someone might find some Society priests fomenting division from full communion with the Church, their local Ordinary and/or the Holy Father in their sermons. The PCED's recommendation is not to attend their chapels habitually, but they acknowledge there is no sin committed nor canonical penalty incurred resulting from attending Mass at SSPX chapels solely out of the desire to worship according to the 1962 missal and in order to fulfill their Sunday obligation."

 

 

Source: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mershon/080711

 

This is why I'd go there instead of the illicit OF mass. 

Edited June 15, 2013 by ToJesusMyHeart

[Nihil Obstat]

It is definitely true that it is neither sinful, nor are there canonical consequences to attending an SSPX Mass in and of itself. That said, it is a perfectly reasonable argument that the attitude of the Society is by nature 'disobedient', and that therefore by regularly attending Society Masses, a layperson might be inordinately exposed to a sort of disobedient spirit.

I am not saying I agree or do not agree with that argument, but I think it is a reasonable one to make.

[havok579257]

so why even go to an sspx mass?  why not save the hassel and go to a true 100% catholic mass?

[Nihil Obstat]

so why even go to an sspx mass?  why not save the hassel and go to a true 100% catholic mass?

So are you saying that Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos is so depressingly incompetent that when he calls the Society clearly and definitively Catholic, he just does not really know what he is talking about?

[ToJesusMyHeart]

so why even go to an sspx mass?  why not save the hassel and go to a true 100% catholic mass?

SSPX is 100% truly Catholic too.

[havok579257]

I thought they were not in full communion with rome?  am I mistaken?  are they in the same communion with rome as the catholic church I attend on Sunday's and is not an sspx mass?

[ToJesusMyHeart]

Depends who you ask.

[Nihil Obstat]

I thought they were not in full communion with rome?  am I mistaken?  are they in the same communion with rome as the catholic church I attend on Sunday's and is not an sspx mass?

As a Society they do not have canonical recognition. Their priests and bishops are considered suspended a divinis.

However, they are undeniably Catholic, demonstrably not heretics, and no longer are their bishops considered excommunicate.

 

I believe the best terminology is to refer to them as being in a canonically irregular situation.

[havok579257]

ok so then why go to an sspx mass when they have issues with the Vatican?  why not go to a church which has absolutely no issues with the Vatican?  to me it seems really weird people go to a mass which the Vatican currently has issues with. 

[Nihil Obstat]

ok so then why go to an sspx mass when they have issues with the Vatican?  why not go to a church which has absolutely no issues with the Vatican?  to me it seems really weird people go to a mass which the Vatican currently has issues with. 

Perhaps you should check other replies in this thread which deal with this very subject. I will clarify any of my remarks as necessary.

[ToJesusMyHeart]

Read the thread havok. 

 

Then ask questions.

[ACS67]

It is definitely true that it is neither sinful, nor are there canonical consequences to attending an SSPX Mass in and of itself. That said, it is a perfectly reasonable argument that the attitude of the Society is by nature 'disobedient', and that therefore by regularly attending Society Masses, a layperson might be inordinately exposed to a sort of disobedient spirit.

I am not saying I agree or do not agree with that argument, but I think it is a reasonable one to make.

I use to attend an SSPX chapel(s) exclusively.  I no longer do so because I sensed that I was getting further and further away from the Church by constantly being told that the Church leaders, bishops, priests "cannot be trusted", the Novus Ordo is "evil" and "poisonous" (Bishop Fellay has said as much consistently and recently), etc. etc.   As long as the SSPX preaches the aforementioned, my advice would be to stay away from the SSPX unless you are on your deathbed. 

Edited June 15, 2013 by ACS67

[PopeStPiusV]

Going to the SSPX probably does not fulfill Synday obligation. Mr. John Salza has pointed out distinctions in Canon 1247&1248 that refute this idea that one fulfills obligation going to an SSPX mass.

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/the-ordinary-mission-of-sspx-john.html

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/what-if-traditional-priests-are.html

 

[Anastasia13]

On 6/14/2013 at 9:09 PM, Nihil Obstat said:

I thought they were not in full communion with rome?  am I mistaken?  are they in the same communion with rome as the catholic church I attend on Sunday's and is not an sspx mass?

As a Society they do not have canonical recognition. Their priests and bishops are considered suspended a divinis.

However, they are undeniably Catholic, demonstrably not heretics, and no longer are their bishops considered excommunicate.

 

I believe the best terminology is to refer to them as being in a canonically irregular situation.

If they are suspended, how is it a valid mass?